What's the point of "restitution" if it came from the victims anyways? The Sacklers would have kept all of their ill-gotten gains under this settlement. The amount they'd be paying is practically just the interest from their earnings.
I have a hard time with the concept of retribution alone, but I think if it is phrased in terms of modeling societal standards and demonstrating to others that this behavior is unacceptable, it is still valuable to society. I guess you can mark that under "deterrence", but it's less about sending a signal to future would-be criminals, and more about communicating and demonstrating societal standards to the entire society at large.
justice from whom? Just because they got a prescription doesn't mean they lost complete body autonomy. The lack of personal responsibility regarding drugs around here is insane.
The whole basis of this suit is that a Purdue subsidiary went out of their way to market these pills as non-addicting. "Personal responsibility" in this case clearly lies on those actors, not the addicts.
I'm not sure about the justice aspect, but I wouldn't underestimate how powerfully addicting some of these drugs can be to the point where it can override your "personal responsibility". Same thing with any substance like alcohol or cigarettes, gambling, over-eating, etc. It's very easy to slip into abuse and an addictive response and susceptibility isn't universal.
Opioids are highly addictive. If you're vulnerable and your doctor eagerly prescribes them because it feeds their wallet, you can easily loose control.
Expecting some personal agency is now victim blaming? Detoxing from opioids is not fatal. It sucks. But it's doable. You don't need to take your entire prescription. Take it while you're in pain.
If you were prescribed heroin and proceeded to take it, you would end up addicted and unable to quit. Full stop. It is exceedingly rare to overcome opiates, you underestimate them greatly.
